Jonathanaronda Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Yes, this is a real question, no I'm not trolling. I heard somewhere the reason why there are gay people is because of natural selection's response to overpopulation. I don't know if that's true or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Isn't this a bit like asking why we have some people who prefer red while others prefer blue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I heard somewhere the reason why there are gay people is because of natural selection's response to overpopulation. What pressures from overpopulation do you think would affect a mechanism like natural selection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Yes, this is a real question, no I'm not trolling. I heard somewhere the reason why there are gay people is because of natural selection's response to overpopulation. I don't know if that's true or not. Since a vast majority of the lgbt do not procreate, I doubt that natural selection has anything to do with it. Even if one could show that being "gay" increased survivability due to overpopulation (and as pointed out already, I can't think of a single mechanism that would support this), the genetics would not be passed to the next generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellowmorgan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 There are both biological and environmental factors. One example of a biological factor is lack of testosterone production and surplus of estradiol production in men, which makes them more "feminine". Opposite goes for women leading to them being more "masculine". Also, I think it is important to mention the obvious fact that many people have sex purely for stimulation/pleasure, not for reproduction. This has been evidenced throughout time and with a plethora of other species of animals, so why would your sex/gender matter if reproduction was irrelevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Folks should remember that we all start out as the same gender. Only after development begins do the chemicals dictate whether development will continue toward the masculine or feminine. The drive for sex comes first. The object of that drive comes later. It doesn't need an evolutionary explanation since sexual activity for pleasure was almost certainly selected for much more than mere sexual activity for procreation. As a general rule, we do it because it feels good, not because we're actively trying to reproduce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathanaronda Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Folks should remember that we all start out as the same gender. Only after development begins do the chemicals dictate whether development will continue toward the masculine or feminine. The drive for sex comes first. The object of that drive comes later. It doesn't need an evolutionary explanation since sexual activity for pleasure was almost certainly selected for much more than mere sexual activity for procreation. As a general rule, we do it because it feels good, not because we're actively trying to reproduce. If we only do sex because it feels good, what about asexuals? And wouldn't that defeat the purpose if sex is only for us to feel good, since all species are to reproduce in order to continue the existence of the next generation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzzwood Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) since all species are to reproduce in order to continue the existence of the next generation? Tell a wolf that, next time you see him/her. He/she doesn't care, only that it feels good. Edited August 31, 2012 by Fuzzwood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arete Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Here's a post I made in another thread on the issue. Homosexuality is consistent with evolutionary models of kin selection and homosexual individuals can have net positive impact of the evolutionary potential of the population they belong to: Nature provides us with numerous examples of nominally "homosexual" individuals engaging in the rearing of offspring, both in other species and our own. When we apply evolutionary models of kin selection and inclusive fitness to these scenarios, they fit within the bounds of having positive net effects on evolutionary fitness. http://en.wikipedia....sexual_behavior http://en.wikipedia....clusive_fitness This article discusses a study in Samoa, where homosexuality in males has a long history of acceptance and looks at the care given by heterosexual males, women and homosexual males to children. homosexual men were shown to provide significantly more care to peripherally related children (nieces, nephews, cousins, etc) than hetero men or women. As these children are carrying a component of the homosexual males genes, and the fact that an additional caregiver - such as a homosexual male - can maximise offspring survival, having/being a homosexual man in such a situation confers a population/familial level of evolutionary success. http://www.news-medi...nt-of-view.aspx When it comes down to it, there's evidence for homosexual individuals positively impacting the success of populations of socially interacting organisms which cooperatively raise young - and when objectively evaluating the broad 'acceptability' of homosexuals raising offspring the evidence is pretty strong that the net evolutionary effect is positive and more than likely has been an element of human societies since their inception - especially given the extremely high prevalence of homosexuality in our nearest relatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...and_other_apes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 If we only do sex because it feels good, what about asexuals? And wouldn't that defeat the purpose if sex is only for us to feel good, since all species are to reproduce in order to continue the existence of the next generation? Here's the mistake in your argument: "As a general rule, we do it because it feels good" does not equal "we only do sex because it feels good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Yes, this is a real question, no I'm not trolling. I heard somewhere the reason why there are gay people is because of natural selection's response to overpopulation. I don't know if that's true or not. There are gay people because reproduction is never perfect, mistakes happen on several levels, I don't like to equate homosexuality with birth defect due to the negative connotations but it is true that problems in the womb both genetic and hormonal can tweak sexuality to outside what the majority call normal. Humans are not only born with there sexuality someplace closer to homosexual than hetero sexual, most human sexuality falls some place along the curve between the two extremes. But it should be noted that not only are humans born with their sexuality skewed away from the opposite sex and toward the same sex it's also true that humans are born physically inter-sexed. Mistakes are made in reproduction and these mistakes can result in individuals that of indeterminate sex, this occurs one in 1500 births. I don't see why it's so difficult to see that people born homosexual might be the result of fetus development not going the direction it should have. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14459843 A wide range of factors determine a baby's sex. Disruption in the development of any of these can cause a disorder of sex development. They can range from girls with more masculine characteristics and vice versa, to babies born with indeterminate sex, previously known as intersex. If babies are born with their sex organs physically between one sex or the other is it so difficult to believe that sexual desire cannot be affected in a similar way? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 If we only do sex because it feels good, what about asexuals? What about them? Are you unfamiliar with the Bell curve and what that means in this context? And wouldn't that defeat the purpose if sex is only for us to feel good, since all species are to reproduce in order to continue the existence of the next generation? When you eat, does it defeat the purpose or is any benefit from eating lost if you somehow don't focus on how this ingested material will break down into usable energy and ensure you don't starve to death? No, it doesn't and we receive the same benefit regardless of why we eat. You get hungry and then you eat because eating feels good an alleviates the hunger. Why should a desire for sex be any different? Why do you believe that we must focus on procreation instead of just having the urge to have sex and choosing to satisfy that urge because it feels good? Is my position not made self-evidently true when we bring the idea of why people masturbate into the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I read an interesting article this morning that touches on this topic. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v13/n9/full/embor2012107a.html Most animals begin their lives as a single cell, grow and develop into one of two sexes and, when mature, interact with the other sex to conceive a new single cell that starts the cycle anew. This basic equation underlies all aspects of sexuality; that is, specific traits evolved to attract members of the opposite sex, ensure copulation and thereby reproduction. It also suggests that all life forms evolved from ancestors that could adopt both male and female roles (Fig 1)—bisexual life forms—and we can find elements of bisexuality throughout all life processes, including the brain functions in higher animals that control sexual behaviour. But, semantics can manipulate perception: the general view still defines male and female in regard to the opposite sex and focuses on differences rather than similarities. However, to explain sexual behaviour, there is a new perspective that regards it as an emergent property of specific areas of the brain. <...> Taken together, this evidence suggests that modern vertebrates are fundamentally bisexual in nature; that the neural mechanisms mediating both male and female copulatory behaviour are normally inhibited; and that activation provides relief from some of the inhibitory inputs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp255 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 (edited) Here's a post I made in another thread on the issue. Homosexuality is consistent with evolutionary models of kin selection and homosexual individuals can have net positive impact of the evolutionary potential of the population they belong to: Personally I am too doubtful of whether this evidence actually has any significant impact such that natural selection can detect it. Basically, to show there could be positive select for gay genetic factors I would rather read a study which had data that showed gay uncles have a significantly greater proportion of nieces/nephews that reach reproductive age. A study to show that gay uncles play with there nieces/nephews more often than hetero uncles is not good enough. Also, this needs to be shown over long periods of time for natural selection to raise the allele frequency of gay genetic factors anyway. This has not been done, and thus group/kin selection is still a big long shot. edit: duplicate thread! yay Edited September 6, 2012 by jp255 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geatar Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Moontanman has it spot on its just a biological defect and probably quite a fairly common one. Just like quite a few babies are born with a cleft lip which is a physical defect, with homosexuality i dont think it has anything to do with messed up hormones because in general gay men look normal, some may act feminine and camp but others dont. I think its a miswiring in the brain that controls sexuality, whether that happens in the womb or as a kid through maybe trauma i dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 The problem I have with your post, Geatar, is the language you use. Imagine if we argued that having dark skin was a biological defect, or that it was merely a miswiring of the genes. Or that blond hair was a biological defect, or that it was the merely from a miswiring of genes. It's only considered "abnormal" given peoples narrower definitions of normal. Homosexuality itself is actually quite normal, as shown by how common it is throughout the animal kingdom. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 Moontanman has it spot on its just a biological defect and probably quite a fairly common one. Just like quite a few babies are born with a cleft lip which is a physical defect, with homosexuality i dont think it has anything to do with messed up hormones because in general gay men look normal, some may act feminine and camp but others dont. I think its a miswiring in the brain that controls sexuality, whether that happens in the womb or as a kid through maybe trauma i dont know. I have read my post several times, and if you got the impression I was equating homosexuality with a cleft palate then I failed. Homosexuality is one of many possibilities along a curve of human sexuality which is controlled by hormones and maybe genes and possibly a combination of both. I would never assert that being homosexual is a defect but it is IMHO controlled more by hormones in the womb and possibly to a lesser extent genes. Possibly the intersexed information should have been left out of my post. It is true that some homosexuals are effeminate or masculine but most do not show any outside signs. I don't know why most discussions about homosexuality seem to center on male homosexuality as though it is somehow more of a problem. I have no doubt that male and female homosexuality have both similar and different causes and i have no doubt that some individuals can indeed choose to go both ways, in fact i would be willing to assert that most can and I am sure that environmental influences can tweek a person in one direction or another... But to say it is a defect indicates the idea that it is somehow wrong and i honestly do not think it is wrong, in fact i think it is normal in the same way that being quite short is normal for some people and being quite tall is normal for others with most people being someplace in between. Both being short or tall is not within the control of the individual and are determined by factors outside the individuals control both genetic, hormonal, and environmental, but neither is a defect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geatar Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 If you made a toy and its suppose to drive left but it drove right than it has a fault. I dont believe that a certain amount of hormones makes you fancy a man rather than a woman. Than wouldn't every body builder coming off steroids become gay for a bit while there hormones level out from the estrogen. I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 If you made a toy and its suppose to drive left but it drove right than it has a fault. I dont believe that a certain amount of hormones makes you fancy a man rather than a woman. Than wouldn't every body builder coming off steroids become gay for a bit while there hormones level out from the estrogen. I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is. You assuming that being homosexual is an on off condition when in fact humans, like most mammals are simply sexual, our culture conditions us to not be bisexual but it's plan that we are. Humans in prison are a prime example and something being what the majority of humans do doesn't make it right or wrong. As for the influence of hormones... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 If you made a toy and its suppose to drive left but it drove right than it has a fault. So you are suggesting that people are supposed to be straight? The toy was consciously designed to drive left. There was no design for people. I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is. So according to your definition males are not normal as we are not what the majority human being is. That is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 I dont have a problem with homosexuality but its not normal because normal is measured by what the majority average human being is. Then you have to ask yourself why cultural normality is at odds with natural phenomenon. Homosexuality is one of the natural states of being. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 17, 2012 Share Posted September 17, 2012 The other question, Geatar, is how certain you are of your numbers... I think you're clearly trying to make an objective argument rooted in the bell curve. IINM, you are not seeking to use the term "normal" as a way to denigrate homosexuals. You just see them as toward the farther ends of the bell curve... away from the mean by some number of standard deviations, correct? Even if so, we must challenge the accuracy of your counts. Since there are so many different types of homosexuality (it exists along a spectrum, and is not an either/or characteristic), and since so many people might be reluctant to tell the truth in surveys of their sexuality we must exercise caution in the conclusions we draw about the population as a whole. Further, the definition of homosexuality tends to be vague... One respondent might interpret it to mean only having actual sexual experiences with a member of the same sex, while another respondent might interpret to mean having consistent desire for members of the same sex, while still another respondent might interpret it to mean having occasional desire for members of the same sex, etc. In short, I encourage you to use caution when making comments rooted in the bell curve on this issue since the population underlying that curve is quite resistant to placement into simple yes/no categories. In further support of my point, here's a nice summary of the demographics problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Incidence_versus_prevalence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geatar Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Look if you are gay you desire your same sex the most, if you are straight you desire the opposite sex the most. Yes a straight man or woman may get a crush on the same sex but that dont make them gay, thats normal, thats admiring someone. Homosexuality is a defect, if it was normal we would all eventually die out surely, homosexuals rely on heterosexuals to exist. Hetros dont rely on Homos do they. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Look if you are gay you desire your same sex the most, if you are straight you desire the opposite sex the most. Yes a straight man or woman may get a crush on the same sex but that dont make them gay, thats normal, thats admiring someone. Homosexuality is a defect, if it was normal we would all eventually die out surely, homosexuals rely on heterosexuals to exist. Hetros dont rely on Homos do they. Careful there dude your ignorance is showing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted September 18, 2012 Share Posted September 18, 2012 Homosexuality is a defect, if it was normal we would all eventually die out surely Isn't it possible that these individuals offer benefits to the offspring of kin in other ways? Isn't it possible to reproduce with members of the opposite sex, while still preferring sex with members of the same? Isn't it possible that the desire for sex itself was selected more than the desire for sex with a certain gender? These are rhetorical questions. The answer is quite self-evidently yes. In case you are interested in correcting your current misconceptions, please explore the below (other similar information is readily available in different forms depending on the depth of your misunderstanding): http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/12/why-are-there-gay-men_n_1590501.html Also, did you know that homosexuality is found in practically every animal in the animal kingdom we've ever studied? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now